Amy Howe

Feb 27 2018

Republican lawmakers return to court on Pennsylvania redistricting

Less than three weeks ago, the Supreme Court declined to get involved in a partisan-gerrymandering challenge to Pennsylvania’s federal congressional maps. Today that state’s Republican lawmakers returned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block what they characterized as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s “intentional seizure of the redistricting process.”

During their first trip to the Supreme Court earlier this month, Republican lawmakers asked the justices to put a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on hold while they appealed the state court’s finding that the map violated the Pennsylvania constitution because it was the product of partisan gerrymandering – that is, the Republican-controlled state legislature had drawn it to obtain an advantage over Democrats. But after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to step in, the dispute returned to Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court adopted a remedial plan. That plan, which is slated to go into effect in time for the 2018 elections, could allow Democrats – who currently hold 5 of the state’s 18 congressional seats – to pick up 3 or 4 more seats.

In the latest legal proceedings, Republican legislators argue (as they did in their earlier efforts at the U.S. Supreme Court) that the state supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal congressional elections. Among other things, the legislators contend, the state court adopted criteria by which to judge the constitutionality of the congressional districts “from whole cloth,” and it set a schedule to remedy the violations it found that, in essence, it knew legislators would not be able to meet. Unless the court intervenes immediately, the legislators tell the justices, Pennsylvania’s upcoming congressional elections – the primaries are scheduled for May – will not go forward under the map that the state legislature enacted in 2011, creating confusion. Therefore, the legislators conclude, the U.S. Supreme Court should put the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s orders on hold to give the legislators time to seek full Supreme Court review.

The legislators’ request will go to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency appeals from the geographic area that includes Pennsylvania. Alito can rule on the application himself or refer it to the full court. When the legislators came to the justices the first time, Alito denied the application himself – which, although there is no way to be sure, suggests that he saw little merit in the request. The legislators are clearly hoping for a better result this time.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
  • Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies